Avoiding Accountability By Way Of Deception
The UPFA government used many deceptive strategies to avoid domestic and international calls for credible inquiry into the allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses. The present cohabitation government’s “strong intent” to address the demands for transitional justice is also extremely vulnerable to same deceptive strategies. Below I continue to the discussion on these strategies.
Deception #4 Pointing the Finger at the “other”
UPFA government avoided addressing the demands for accountability by pointing at the hypocrisy of those countries that supported the UNHCR resolutions. The motive of UPFA regime was to make the majority community feel better about itself and to justify not taking responsibility for its own actions. By blaming the others, the regime covered-up its’ lack of interest in addressing the profound effects of memory of the war on individual and collective consciousness. The regime blamed and humiliated the victims and those came forward to assist them. In the process the perpetrators of alleged crimes also became victims as they were denied an opportunity to clear their names or come to terms with their guilt and trauma. Certainly, the international community did not lose its power and influence to navigate the domestic process of accountability.
It is well known that many of those countries that supported the UNHCR resolution follow double standards and discriminatory approaches with countries that are their enemies or not so relevant to their geopolitical interests, especially where human rights is concerned. They have avoided international accountability by not ratifying international conventions that are in place to safeguard human rights and sometimes, even by supporting groups that violate human rights. For example, UN Charters I and IV do not allow the war for the purpose of regime change. Geneva Conventions 1949 and 1977 prohibit initiation of invasions of other countries and directly involving or providing any form of support for wars of aggressions against foreign states. Powerful countries often violated these treaties as they command greater leverage to manipulate and avoid compliance with treaties to serve their selfish interests. If the GOSL is sincerely committed to accountability to its own people and to good governance, then it should not follow footsteps or enlist the support of these powerful countries are disrespectful of international t treaties. At the same time we must acknowledge that in a number of instances, these powerful countries publicly acknowledged and apologized for war crimes, conducted domestic inquiries and punished a few who were found guilty.
It is useful, in this case, to look at an example that was more judiciously handled: President Bush called the allegations of abuse of Iraqi soldiers in Abu Ghraib “abhorrent” and promised to punish those responsible for them, even after Specialist Joseph Darby, a member of the U.S. Army’s Military Police Corps, delivered a CD full of documentary photographs to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antony Taguba’s report of investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib, internally released March 12, concluded that U.S. soldiers committed “egregious acts and grave breaches of international law.” These acts were “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” and included “keeping detainees naked, pouring cold water on naked detainees, using military dogs without muzzles to intimidate and frighten, and threatening detainees with loaded guns.”
It is useful, in this case, to look at an example that was more judiciously handled: President Bush called the allegations of abuse of Iraqi soldiers in Abu Ghraib “abhorrent” and promised to punish those responsible for them, even after Specialist Joseph Darby, a member of the U.S. Army’s Military Police Corps, delivered a CD full of documentary photographs to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antony Taguba’s report of investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib, internally released March 12, concluded that U.S. soldiers committed “egregious acts and grave breaches of international law.” These acts were “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” and included “keeping detainees naked, pouring cold water on naked detainees, using military dogs without muzzles to intimidate and frighten, and threatening detainees with loaded guns.”






